Since really heavy words have flown, today I want this hell to end, now. Today is the first of the year. Of a new year. And I do not want to have any conflicts with anyone for any reason. I gladly provide a link to my version of the G.91R4 which stops the develpment in 2016 and which I have never worked on anymore, so as to remove any further doubts. I still apologize for my unjustified accusations to Adriano to Enrico and Massimiliano, to whom I wish to continue the marvelous work they are carrying out.

cobe571 wrote in Mon Jan 01, 2018 9:25 pm:The news, that a G-91-R1B, almost identical to mine was in circulation, was notified to me by an acquaintance ... My sincerest apologies to Adriano, Enrico and Massimiliano. My sincerest compliments for the Great Job.My sincerest apologies againPatrizio ~

Patrizio, what you wrote makes you so much honor!I am very saddened by what happened to you, I also wish you my sincere wishes to get well soon and to be able to return to modeling your beautiful planes. I am happy for the epilogue and your congratulatory declaration to the splendid work of Massimiliano, the wonderful tester Enrico ... and finally to myself that I have always tried to make this project more and more pleasant for the community of Italian pilots of the G91 , I hope soon that they will be able to fly with FGFS in order to remember their moments of flight on this beautiful plane.We will continue to commit ourselves to making it better and better!

Mada00 wrote in Mon Jan 01, 2018 9:21 pm:It can not be overlooked, however, that the request for "commit logs from a repository is a paper trail ... a trail of paper that can not be falsified" is a consequence of the "doubt" insinuated by those who claim to have been robbed.

no, this is backwards... it is a consequence of recording the evolution of a project by anyone working on the project... recording that evolution is exactly what a project repository is all about...

now i see that this has been resolved...

"You get more air close to the ground," said Angalo. "I read that in a book. You get lots of air low down, and not much when you go up.""Why not?" said Gurder."Dunno. It's frightened of heights, I guess."

I'm glad it has been resolved all amiably - Cobe571, thanks for clarifying.

But for future reference, I would like everyone to really consider the following scenario:

Imagine I am an artist - 3d modeler and photographer. I get a tip from a friend that one of my creations is advertized to be submitted to Flightgear on a Facebook page. I skim over the page, and because I am about to leave on a photo-shoot to Bora Bora, I google FG, get the emails of a few people who look like they run the problem and alert them that it seems someone has stolen my artwork and intends to submit it to FG and that this is not acceptable. Then I drive to the airport and embark on my flight.

In the mean time, there's a submission being made, and one of the developers pulls out the mail I have sent. People stick their heads together, the submitting party argues vocally how it's an insult that their creation is treated that way and that no actual evidence has been brought forward, people pull out the good principle 'in dubio pro reo' and as no evidence is brought forward by myself (sitting on Bora Bora), someone (say Richard) commits the model.

Alas - in this little piece of fiction you're reading, the submitter has actually stolen the model.

So when I come back home three weeks later and check on my affairs, I also suddenly see my commercially available 3d work on the FG repository. I think 'WTF - didn't I specifically warn these guys???' But as they evidently seem to ignore what I say, I call my lawyer. We have a small chat, he looks at the commit history, and next thing that happens is that Richard gets a nice letter, explaining that he put copyrighted work on a pubic repository and asking him to pay 100 US$ for every day it's been there in damages, plus a 300$ fee for the lawyer.

And here we go.

Do you think the lawyer is going to say, well 'Hey Richard, I completely understand that just based on the written warning, you could not possibly know that the model was really stolen - because Thorsten was really obliged to tell you that he went abroad and could not be contacted for a while, so let's drop the whole case?' Do you really think a court is going to accept that defence - especially if you recall for a moment that in this case the model has actually been stolen?

Do you think stealing is only a crime if the victim of the theft reacts within a timeframe and condition a 3rd party like a repository owner sets? Do you really think stealing can only take place for published things (and hence hacking Mrs. Clinton's account and obtaining her emails was not stealing since obviously she never published these private emails)? Do you think getting a copy of the inpublished next blockbuster movie and showing it ahead of cinematic release isn't a problem because the movie wasn't published yet?

I *really* *REALLY* hate to so reliably appear in the role of the spoil sport doing the reality check - I dearly wish you'd cast someone else for this role this year. But the above scenario is not far-fetched and in outward appearance it resembles exactly what we just have seen, and unless we take time and sort out carefully, we *can* *not* *know* who is telling the truth up-front.

Which is why nobody should be offended when being asked for clarification and evidence.

And everyone who doesn't want to end up getting the letter asking him to pay a few thousand bucks better take time and look carefully at all the details.

And, in addition to what Thorsten said, we as a project are not obliged to commit anything to FGAddon. Neither are we obliged to add it in a time frame set by the requester. Cases like this it takes time, so let's not rush to get it in.Thankfully this has been resolved now.

Suppose I'm an arts dealer and you offer me a painting - but a day before, I get an anonymous tip that the painting is a forgery. Hence I ask you to provide proof that the painting is genuine.

Arguing like many in this thread, you'd insist that I have to buy the painting on the grounds that you've been accused without evidence and it's up to the accuser to provide evidence, not up to you, and when there's doubt I have to decide for the accused. In reality, the elefant in the room of course is that no law obliges me to buy anything from you in the first place.

Take a moment to let that sink in.

I can in fact decline to buy without giving you any reasons. I might decline because I don't like your nose - and you still have no legal case against me. And since you have no a priori right in this situation, I don't violate any of your rights by asking you for proof rather than your accuser (this is different from criminal proceedings where you do have an a priori right, i.e. to be presumed innocent).

And, as Erik has been pointed out - the situation here is that there is no a priori right to repository access - we as a project can in fact set the conditions under which we commit - and that includes that we can ask for evidence of ownership or proper licensing - without stating any reason.

Thorsten wrote in Tue Jan 02, 2018 6:41 am:I *really* *REALLY* hate to so reliably appear in the role of the spoil sport doing the reality check - I dearly wish you'd cast someone else for this role this year. But the above scenario is not far-fetched and in outward appearance it resembles exactly what we just have seen, and unless we take time and sort out carefully, we *can* *not* *know* who is telling the truth up-front.

I suggest flagging a post with the ! button, and write something in the "Further comments" section. Then the red/green admins/moderators can deal with it (or pass it onto the affected core/content developer).

Which is why nobody should be offended when being asked for clarification and evidence.

This is very important general point for content developers. Note that if you are offended, then this will automatically be seen as suspicious! It also helps to add new content to an online SCM repository (git, svn, hg, cvs, etc.) as it is created. This protects you against any false ownership claims.